FIle Ref. #179
JAN-26-00 WED 02:08 T.H.O.M.P.S.O.N.
864 6564
P.02
(1/'/1f C Luu{ fit ~- tt'F #
/71 - f~;Il/(I/l1Z.(,.l '2J; )<:){,tJ,
January 18, 2000
Mike Thompson (Pg. 1 of 2)
2140 Calais Drive
Miami Beach, Fl. 33141
To City Commission:
Honorable Mayor & Commission,
As a 19 years resident of North Beach and a 23 year citizen of Miami
Beach, I havEl placed my own criterion on the RFP submissions guided by
historical changes throughout the city and the future needs of the North End.
Some of you may recall that I did not favor the placement of the library on
the 72nd.St. site some years ago. My logic was that the commercial area needed
anchor stores much like shopping centers to draw both day and nioht business
to the area. Furthermore, I felt that stores would add job potentials to the
low/moderate income neighborhood. Add to that the fact that folks in the North
End needed to leave their area to find shopping diversity. The library would not
give the neighborhoods these benefits.
We all know that parking problems have grown In South Beach as the
area changed from no-car owning elderly to young two car households. The
72nd. St. parkIng lot may be sporadically used today, but the future growth of
North Beach and the future needs for parking must be addressed today. None of
you but previous commissions ignored this for South Beach years ago. What
also needs to be added to the equation is the weekend beach users. If the night
shopper returns to the area the stores that only use day time parking (with sure
to be extended hours into night), that parking will add to the need for spaces.
I did attend the RFP meetings, and I did listen intently. Not just as a North
Beach Development Corporation Board Member (commercially oriented) but as
a residing citizen (half of the N.S.D.C. Board Members are not North End
residents and don't have residential needs).
Added to this thought process Is Leibman & Gotleibs' arguments of past
commission meetings (and proven to be correct opInIons) that conformity to
surroundings should be mandatory. I agree and apply this thinking to the parking
lot proposals. The new building must not dwarf the surrounding stores, park,
condos and apartments. (The Taylor plan has a tower not In the height count of
72 ft.)
Therefore, I support the Equity proposal based on smaller size
(conformity), the need to exit the building to the sidewalk to enter the stores,
(feed/no the neiqhborhood stores with foot traffic) and the 252 extra parking
spaces, (for neighborhood shoos. beach-ao/no and auaranteed future
community qrowth). Tavlor must add a floor for each extra 100 soaces.
-Remember the stores planned for today have a parking factor. We know
that these stores will not be there forever. New and different store of the future
will replace them and may need more parking and that's also where the Tavlor
plan fails. Their only solution to the lesser 252 parking space problem, is to add
another floor (100 spots per floor). That is expensive and adds height.
JAN-26-00 WED 02:10 T.H.O.M.P.S.O.N.
864 6564
P.03
(Pg. 2 of 2)
I have crttached my comparison sheet to aid in your decision making.
Please, please, please don't be blinded by rent but think and decide what is best
for the residents and the commercial neighborhood both for today and tomorrow.
Thank you for your a ention,
~~mpso
cc The Mayor & All Commissioners
City Mananer
City Clerk (for agenda package)
Note; Attached 2 pages of comparisons
JAN-26-00 WED 02:10 T.H.O.M.P.S.O.N.
864 6564
P.04
10f2
72"d. St. RFP Comparables
(The Point = Equity 72nd. st. Site = Taylor)
Goals Results Winner
Equity Taylor
1. Size 503,905sq ft 472.034sq ft Equity
(Taylor reduced feet providing less parking)
2. Height 75 feet 74 Feet + Equal
(74 ft. plus tower above offices)
3. Office space None 48.000sq It Equity
(71st. St. has many office vacancies)
(Rent to be higher then Lincoln Road)
(Sure un-use, fail on city rental income)
4. Retail 36t500sq ft 63,1 OOsq ft Equity
(1,000 ft. stores 36 63 too many)
(concern established store will suffer)
5. Publlx 51,500sq ft 44,OOOsq ft Equity
(We don't need 2 Publix stores but one properly sized)
(That will open up present site with potential altemative that
will less impact area streets)
6. Movie Theater 81,466sq ft None Equity
(In one year area will have no theaters)
7. Black Box 12.940 free * None Equity
(A small beginning of culture for community)
8. Open Space None 80,000sq ft Equity
(Open space discourages neighborhood infiltration)
9. F.A.R. 1.08 1.45 Equity
(One/third less)
10. Parking Spaces 906 654 Equity
(252 more for beach, neighborhood, future)
11. Financial $35 million $63 million Equity
(Equity #1 source established, Taylor #3 pieced)
12. Restaurants None 26,600 Equity
(Will pull from Normandy and local area)
13. Visitors Center None 1,260 Taylor
(Future home of N.S.D.C. watch for their support of Taylor)
(Negotiate with Equity and see if they will provide)
14. Lease Term 50 + SO 50 +40 Equal
(Ten year difference commitment)
15. Developer One two Equity
(One is controllable and responsible)
16. Rent $150.000+ * $300,000 + Taylor
(The high office costs are high in the Taylor proposal
vacancy doesn't produce income "city income/rent income)
JAN-26-00 WED 02:11 T.H.O.M.P.S.O.N.
864 6564
P.05
Continued
2012
Goals
Equity
Taylor
Winner
17. Continuity with area Store look Malllook Equity
(Creates neighborhood foot traffic, shop fronts like area
stores, symmetrical to neighboring shops, it fits)
18. Grocery location West side East side Equity
(The Taylor grocery location on Collins will add traffic while
the Equity location with a Harding frontage will be a store
front to the park and tennis, not a concrete wall as Taylor
has tried to hide with stairs.)
Note * See 7 and 16 above. Equity is reducing the annual rent from
$160,000 to $50,000 substituting the black box were, free ($100,000).
. It appears that Taylor is more concerned with building what they want
while Equity Is concerned with what "we" want as residents.
. Certainly one plan can argue that the City "might" reap higher profits
and if that is the first priority then there are other uses for the site that
are high lent income generators.
. Note - Goal is "not" Income, but neighborhood revitalization. Office
complex Is a day time not night time 5 not 7 day commercial feeder.
. Equity is a city based company while Taylor Is a Miami based company.
Certainly a small difference but perhaps that Is why they are more
neighborhood conscious.
Ps Although I was not appointed to the RFP committee, I was the mD
Derson from North Beach, as a matter of fact the entire City (Commissioner
Smith excepted) that stood at the lectern at the convnission meetings
pushing for this lot to go out for RFP. I have studied this site for 19 years
as a resident, North Beach activist and professional real estate agent.
Thoughts by
Mike Thompson
305-864-6564
JAN-26-00 WED 02:08 T.H.O.M.P.S.O.N.
864 6564
1&
~~&kc
re- /Krf/ ~
, ,.
~ ~r6 C!e?A4Hd.r~
*7u #
CIy Hj/1. (ko-
;i($
P.01
o
c:)
",""1
[""') l."'l
c.Yl I ~
...,.......
/
....""C, ",:.:.......,.
(;i :.": \1"\
~:,-:: ::?
--r\ ,.........-,
c; .~
,q